Duke of Normandy (for those who are still interested, if any)

In any case it would be less wrong than the absurdities posted on Royal
Insight (the fairy tell about each English Sovereign holding the title
of Duke of Normandy, without interruption since Henry Beauclerck, and
assuming it "upon accession" to the English throne).

With a single and peculiar exception (again to be discussed in a
forthcoming message), there was no separate claim on Normandy during
the 100 years war: the English King, in virtue of his bogus ambition to
the French crown, did not claim Normandy any more or any less than he
claimed Picardy or any other part of the Kingdom. So to pretend that
the English Kings asserted their title to Normandy after the Treaty of
Paris is plain wrong, if one intend by "title to Normandy" the right to
the title of Duke of Normandy (again, with one peculiar exception
however). They claimed to be King of France, that's all, and I do not
discuss the fact that they did (although I contest the right they had
to do it).

Don Aitken...

While this is true, the administration of Normandy was in many
respects kept separate from that of the rest of Lancastrian France.
The is an excellent discussion in the chapter "The English in France
1413-1453" in Gerald Harriss's 1360-1461 volume of the New Oxford
History of England. Not only were many English settled in Normandy,
but the native Normans played a large part in its administration.
Long-defunct Norman institutions, such as the Estates, the
seneschalship, the *grand conseil* and the *échiquier* were restored.
A sense of Norman pride and separateness seems to have been
encouraged, and it would have been part of this to encourage memories
of its status as a separate duchy. All of this, of course, is not to
deny your point, which I think is clearly correct, that both Henries
ruled Normandy in right of the claimed crown of France, and not
otherwise.

I would like to try to elaborate a synthetic note on the subject, as
impartial as possible. However, it is difficulty if nobody more
open-minded than Mr Buyers (I have no time to lose now to demonstrate
evidence as the fact that the Duke of Normandy was one of the 12
original French peerages) takes the pain to participate in the
discussion. My own position on the subject has evolved, but more due to

Don Aitken...

My experience, and I think I am not alone in this, is that discussion
with Mr Buyers, once he has taken up one of his entrenched positions,
is not a very productive occupation. The fact that few others have
participated doesn't mean that no-one agrees with you.

CJ Buyers...

Nevertheless, Buyers's entrenched positions do have their uses.

Sooner or later Velde is so stirred up it all that he goes off to feret
about for original documents which then end up on his website. Often
coming back with the opposite to the stand he has taken here. The
question of Letters Patent vs the Sovereign's right to create titles
for her family by whatever means, a recent example. No gain without
pain, as they say.

my personal research than to the discussions on ATR, as it has been the
case in the past on other subjects (as the Spanish succession for
example). That is one of the disappointing aspects of the new ATR,
which I have found rather changed after my absent time, and I suppose
there is nothing to do against that evolution. I think I have already
posted a lot of information from primary sources or from good
bibliography about how precisely the title of Duke of Normandy was
properly and carefully relinquished. But I am not sure it is worth to
post the new elements I have now found if it is only for the benefit of
people who anyway will not move of a iota from their undocumented and
baseless position ("this is true because the Queen's webmaster says it
is"), whatever evidence is produced against it. However, I have come to
the conclusion that things are a bit more complicated here than the
broadly correct but perhaps too short summary given by Fran=E7ois Velde
on his website.